Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2012 22:11 UTC
Legal Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case do not support Apple's claims that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order to its designers. It's pretty damning. Apple has very selectively and actively deleted sections of internal Samsung documents and talks to make it seem as if Samsung's designers were ordered to copy the iPhone. With the unredacted, full documents without Apple's deletions in hand, a completely different picture emerges: Samsung's designers are told to be as different and creative as possible. There's no 'copy the iPhone'-order anywhere, as Apple claimed. Instead, it says this: "designers rightly must make their own designs with conviction and confidence; do not strive to do designs to please me (the president); instead make designs with faces that are creative and diverse." I guess my initial scepticism about the documents was not uncalled for. What do you know - lawyers twist and turn the truth. Shocker, huh?
Thread beginning with comment 538136
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

You sound like one of those people who keep asking for ever more missing links between ape and man. Each time a new link is found, you shift the goalposts and demand yet another link. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Fascinating.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by MOS6510 on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:25 in reply to "RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think he's pretty clear what he wants, but you keep presenting him with other stuff.

To use your example: Jared wants to see a man, while you keep bringing him apes saying "it looks a bit like a modern human, so it must be one".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:28 in reply to "RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Thom has brought me absolutely nothing but his personal views, insults, and trolling.

I would be very happy if he would do half of what the other commenter provided. (Which I do appreciate and thanked him for.)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:27 in reply to "RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And your trolling reaches new heights. Each new link? One commenter posted one. And that statement agrees with everything I have said and doesn't even reference the documents in question. But you managed to be insulting so that's a point for you (by Fandroid rules, I suppose).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:39 in reply to "RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I present to you Apple's selective quoting to make it seem as if a Samsung exec ordered its designers to copy the iPhone: you dismiss it.

I explain to you that Apple has been hammering on about 'wilfulness' which intrinsically means that it Samsung copied the iPhone *on purpose*, and thus that someone must have given the order to do so. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of wilfulness and dismiss it.

Another commenter then presents the following line, in which Apple literally argues that Samsung had a plan to copy the iPhone:

"Samsung’s documents show that Samsung developed an overall plan to copy Apple’s innovative designs and features [...]"


And you still insist Apple did not argue Samsung gave a copy order? What, is Samsung some sort of collective hivemind whose individual members all magically come up with the same ideas without executives calling the shots?

This is so incredibly crazy. We've given you everything you asked for and more, and yet you continue to ask for more 'proof'. Yes, this is EXACTLY like people asking for ever more missing links - and that's not trolling, it's a pointy simile to illustrate how ridiculous you sound.

Edited 2012-10-10 16:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2